|
Misc.legal.moderated tries to sound like an exception to the usual
miniature dictatorships that call themselves moderated forums. Its
rules promise a fiduciary level of integrity in administration and
notice when a submission is rejected. These promises are lies, and the
moderated forum is no place for any honest person to conduct debate.
Paul Cassel, the moderator, rejects submissions without providing
notice, for reasons outside the forum mandate, if only he strongly
disagrees.
Cassel is a deep thinker, introspective enough to know that the
policies of MLM make him happy, no matter that he speaks of himself in
the third person and sounds a bit insane. He says that it is a happy
state of affairs that MLM rejects submissions based on bias, when
Cassel's own bias effects the rejection, but to Casel's credit, he
knows his lying ways make him happy. MLM forum moderator, Paul Cassel,
posted in this forum:
"Happily, MLM doesn't permit fanatics from using it as an outlet for
crackpot partisan theories." (http://tinyurl.com/35naou)
Obviously intellectually dishonest, Cassel might still come clean and
stop being a garden variety liar. He should post the truth in the
Forum Rules: not only will he reject partisan theories he deems
crackpot, but he will intentionally omit e-mailing any notice, when he
rejects submissions for their political incorrectness.
The posting that Cassel's censored for reasons, violating his forum's
public mandate, can be found _supra,_ and for best viewing, at:
http://kanbaroo.blogspot.com/2008/03/kanbaroo-court-32nd-installment.html
(32nd Installment. "The Disbarment of a President.")
This essay suggests a novel legal theory that might have avoided Bill
Clinton's disbarment. The purpose of the exercise is not belated
defense practice but critique of the institutions regulating legal
practice. I analyze how the bureaucratization of this branch of law
has, throughout the profession, damaged legal sophistication.
Read the essay to better understand the law of preemption or immunity;
read the thread to understand the stultifying effect of the State Bar
establishment on lawyers, including some of those posting here; or
read Paul Cassel's interjection, to understand the bond between
diverse petty authoritarians, from fanatically dishonest forum
moderators like Cassel to the State Bar establishment.
Stephen R. Diamond
http://kanBARoo.blogspot.com
http://disputedissues.blogspot.com
(POST TO MY BLOGS, AND YOU WILL *NOT* SUFFER CENSORSHIP)
|
| |
| |
Here's the scoop on Cassel. He's a rightwing nut who does not even
conceal the fact in postings to the forum he owns or stole. Surveying
his online preoccupations, what he refers to as my partisanship is not
my contempt for the State Bar establishment but ... my defense of Bill
Clinton!
Yes, believe it or not, this "moderator," to whom lawyers and public
are willing to submit their postings for approval, reviled my
submission because he understood as my purpose Bill Clinton's defense.
This "moderator" is so far right that he thinks anyone who defends
Clinton is a crackpot fanatic.
Just think how enraged our moderator would become, had he gotten it.
Stephen Diamond
http://kanBARoo.blogspot.com
http://disputedissues.blogspot.com
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 22:55:04 -0700 (PDT), stephen
<srdiamond@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
Paul Cassel, the moderator, rejects submissions without providing
notice, for reasons outside the forum mandate, if only he strongly
disagrees.
[snip]
I don't think Paul moderates MLM. AFAIK, Bernie Cosell does.
(I also saw a post dated March 15 on header-munging indicating that
Eck (Mark Eckenwiler) was a co-moderator. That isn't still true, is
it?)
|
| |
| |
It appears that the "moderators" of MLM are entirely aware that they run a
corrupt operation, where politics figures into rejection, although they
promised a fiduciary level of responsibility. How do *lawyers* tolerate
such a cesspool?
JMW wrote:
Just for kicks and giggles, I recently started posting to
misc.legal.moderated. I'm only interested in a few of the subjects,
but I'll give a professional response in areas that I know well. I
also noticed that Seth Breidbart, despite his sporadic postings here,
posts nearly every day in that newsgroup.
Yep. Bernie is far left and anti-Bush. What he lets through reflects
that. [Response by Paul Cassel.]
(http://www.cyclingforums.com/t348848.html) -- Yes, this is the intended
url
Anyone who would continue to moderate a forum after acknowledging its
corrupt fixing of rejections, as has Casell, lacks the integrity to
perform according to promise. (And anyone who calls someone "far left,"
and feels the need to add that the person described is "anti-Bush," lacks
sufficient political perspective even to participate in a discussion about
censorship.)
Stephen R. Diamond
http://kanBARoo.blogspot. com
http://disputedissues.blogspot.com
|
| |
| |
Stephen,
I suspect that several public apologies are in order. You've embarrassed
yourself greatly, here.
Good luck,
Dave M.
|
| |
| |
<snip>
How do *lawyers* tolerate such a cesspool?
It's easy.
1. We don't care about the political bias or a moderator in a usenet forum.
2. We expect that anyone who does care gets to propose a change in
moderator and to vote on the change.
3. We don't want to take over as a volunteer moderator.
<snip>
McGyver
|
| |
| |
Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
It appears that the "moderators" of MLM are entirely aware that they
run a corrupt operation, where politics figures into rejection,
although they promised a fiduciary level of responsibility. How do
*lawyers* tolerate such a cesspool?
How do pigs tolerate slop ?
JMW wrote:
Just for kicks and giggles, I recently started posting to
misc.legal.moderated. I'm only interested in a few of the subjects,
but I'll give a professional response in areas that I know well. I
also noticed that Seth Breidbart, despite his sporadic postings
here, posts nearly every day in that newsgroup.
(http://www.cyclingforums.com/t348848.html) -- Yes, this is the
intended url
Anyone who would continue to moderate a forum after acknowledging its
corrupt fixing of rejections, as has Casell, lacks the integrity to
perform according to promise. (And anyone who calls someone "far
left," and feels the need to add that the person described is
"anti-Bush," lacks sufficient political perspective even to
participate in a discussion about censorship.)
Stephen R. Diamond
http://kanBARoo.blogspot. com
http://disputedissues.blogspot.com
|
| |
| |
On Mar 31, 10:48=A0am, "McGyver" <Greyp...@msn.com> wrote:
"Stephen R. Diamond" <srdiam...@verizon.net> wrote in messagenews:op.t8udd=
7ob4dpep3@jq0arm4.myhome.westell.com...
<snip>
It's easy.
1. =A0We don't care about the political bias or a moderator in a usenet fo=
rum.
You are saying nothing less than that you are indifferent to
corruption.
The forum is advertised as being moderated under a standard of
fairness tantamount to the moderators owing users a fiduciary duty,
and you simply participate like sheep. Your comment ignores that the
problem is NOT the moderators' bias, but the false representation of
fairness.
srd
|
| |
| |
On Mar 30, 8:03=A0am, Bob Stock <x...@xxx.com> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 22:55:04 -0700 (PDT), stephen
<srdiam...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]>Paul Cassel, the moderator, rejects submissions without providing
[snip]
I don't think Paul moderates MLM. =A0AFAIK, Bernie Cosell does.
As best as can be determined by reasonable effort, Paul Cassel
continues to moderate the forum, but Cosell also is a moderator.
Rather than try to eliminate political bias, they apparently think
that including diverse biases solves rather than compounds the
problem, most of all, the dishonesty.
That the information is up-to-date is substantiated by recent events.
David Martell posted that I should communicate with the moderator,
whom he named as Paul Cassel, and following that posting in the same
thread, Cassel justified the censorship, WITHOUT DENYING MARTELL'S
STATEMENT.
Stephen Diamond
http://kanBARoo.blogspot.com
http;//disputedissues.blogspot.com
|
| |
| |
On Mar 31, 11:11=A0am, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote:
Stephen R. Diamond wrote:
How do pigs tolerate slop ?
Apt analogy.
Stephen Diamond
|
| |
| |
Contrary to my claim, Martell did NOT name Casell as I claimed, but
rather Cosell. I was confused because Casell immediately posted in
response. Casell, however, had the opportunity to deny being one of
the moderators in a thread to which he posted, and his involvement is
shown by my cite to http://www.cyclingforums.com/t348848.html
Check it out.
Stephen Diamond
On Apr 4, 9:46=A0am, stephen <srdiam...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mar 30, 8:03=A0am, Bob Stock <x...@xxx.com> wrote:
As best as can be determined by reasonable effort, Paul Cassel
continues to moderate the forum, but Cosell also is a moderator.
Rather than try to eliminate political bias, they apparently think
that including diverse biases solves rather than compounds the
problem, most of all, the dishonesty.
That the information is up-to-date is substantiated by recent events.
David Martell posted that I should communicate with the moderator,
whom he named as Paul Cassel, and following that posting in the same
thread, Cassel justified the censorship, WITHOUT DENYING MARTELL'S
STATEMENT.
Stephen Diamondhttp://kanBARoo.blogspot.com
http;//disputedissues.blogspot.com
|
| |
| |
stephen wrote:
On Mar 30, 8:03 am, Bob Stock <x...@xxx.com> wrote:
As best as can be determined by reasonable effort, Paul Cassel
continues to moderate the forum, but Cosell also is a moderator.
Rather than try to eliminate political bias, they apparently think
that including diverse biases solves rather than compounds the
problem, most of all, the dishonesty.
That the information is up-to-date is substantiated by recent events.
David Martell posted that I should communicate with the moderator,
whom he named as Paul Cassel, and following that posting in the same
thread, Cassel justified the censorship, WITHOUT DENYING MARTELL'S
STATEMENT.
Stephen Diamond
http://kanBARoo.blogspot.com
http;//disputedissues.blogspot.com
A reasonable check would have been to look at the charter for the group.
It tells you exactly who the moderators are.
|
| |
| |
A reasonable check would have been to look at the charter for the group.
=A0 It tells you exactly who the moderators are.- Hide quoted text -
It isn't clear to me that the charter statement, not revised since
2005, is up to date. Anyway, posters are avoiding the question, and if
Cassel thinks I have wronged him, he can demand an apology. Are you
posting to defend Cassel's honor, where he remains unconcerned?
The public issue isn't Cassel, who in any event, has demonstrated he
supports dishonest forum censorship. The issue is dishonesty in forum
moderation.
Stephen Diamond
http://kanBARoo.blogspot.com
http://disputedissues.blogspot.com
|
| |
| |
Stephen,
I don't think Paul moderates MLM. AFAIK, Bernie Cosell does.
As best as can be determined by reasonable effort, Paul Cassel
continues to moderate the forum, but Cosell also is a moderator.
What proof do you have to back up this assertion? Show us that Paul
Cassel is a moderator or co-moderater of misc.legal.moderated.
That the information is up-to-date is substantiated by recent events.
David Martell posted that I should communicate with the moderator,
whom he named as Paul Cassel, and following that posting in the same
thread, Cassel justified the censorship, WITHOUT DENYING MARTELL'S
STATEMENT.
This is untrue. Here's my quote, "If you are unhappy with the way Mr.
Cossell moderates MLM why don't you send your objections to him? Posting
your objections here may make you feel good but will not affect MLM."
I do not name Paul Cassel as the moderator. I do mention Mr. Cossell.
Cossell is not Cassel. Names are important. Try to get my name right too,
you are misspelling it in your post.
Good luck,
Dave M.
|
| |
| |
On Apr 4, 10:44=A0am, "David L. Martel" <marte...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Stephen,
=A0 =A0What proof do you have to back up this assertion? Show us that Paul=
Cassel is a moderator or co-moderater of misc.legal.moderated.
Evidence includes Cassel's failure to deny the assertion that he is
responsible as moderator.
If Cassel has no connection to moderation, his comment fails to be a
moderator's admission, and his failure to deny fails to substantiate a
moderator's position. So what, when everyone understands moderation is
politically biased in MLM? The conclusion stands, even if one piece of
evidence is faulty.
Stephen Diamond
http://kanbaroo.blogspot.com
http://disputedissues.blogspot.com
|
| |
| |
On Mar 31, 10:48 am, "McGyver" <Greyp...@msn.com> wrote:
"Stephen R. Diamond" <srdiam...@verizon.net> wrote in
messagenews:op.t8udd7ob4dpep3@jq0arm4.myhome.westell.com...
<snip>
How do *lawyers* tolerate such a cesspool?
You are saying nothing less than that you are indifferent to
corruption.
Bias is not corruption. You have stated no facts that amount to an
allegation of corruption.
The forum is advertised as being moderated under a standard of
firness tantamount to the moderators owing users a fiduciary duty,
and you simply participate like sheep. Your comment ignores that the
problem is NOT the moderators' bias, but the false representation of
fairness.
I also don't care about a moderator's bias that results in unfairness which
is contrary to a representation of fairness (even if there had been one), in
a usenet forum, which is not important enough for me to be concerned about.
There has been no advertisment of fairness or of fiduciary duty. You are
making that up.
You may have been treated unfairly. And so you are attempting to make that
into a crusade that everyone worthwhile should join. Sorry, but every
instance of unfairness to you doesn't become everyone else's crusade.
Yours truely,
One of the Sheep
(defined as anyone who won't join your artificial crusade).
|
| |
| |
On Apr 4, 12:27=A0pm, "McGyver" <Greyp...@msn.com> wrote:
On Mar 31, 10:48 am, "McGyver" <Greyp...@msn.com> wrote:
Receiving the benefit of any doubt, your opinion that no corruption is
involved depends critically on your denial that the forum promised a
fiduciary level of duty. You went so far as to claim, with reckless
boldness not to speak of ordinary rudeness, that I made this up. My
argument, and I hope your disagreement, rests completely on the
promise of a fiduciary level of duty. I am pissed off not because my
submission was unfairly refused--big deal--but because I was deceived
about the exercise of moderation, and I'll admit, pissed somewhat at
myself for breaking a quasi-principle of never posting to a moderated
forum, where controversy is involved.
I'll say that with these facts before me, I would join a crusade
against such corruption of public discussion, whether our difference
is a matter of personal character or ideology. But it may not be a
difference at all. You might merely be incredulous at the promise of
mock-fiduciary duty. So here is the crucial quote from the Charter, of
which you were unaware:
13. Although no legal relationships are created by this
document, the moderator is expected to behave as if she or
he were in a fiduciary relationship with persons reading and
posting to the group. (http://tinyurl.com/64xrqy)
Stephen Diamond
http://kanbaroo.blogspot.com
http://disputedissues.blogspot.com
|
| |
| |
On Apr 4, 12:27 pm, "McGyver" <Greyp...@msn.com> wrote:
On Mar 31, 10:48 am, "McGyver" <Greyp...@msn.com> wrote:
I don't know why Outlook Express is not organizing this reply by marking
your post with indent symbols > to indicate the difference between your post
and my reply. I don't even know if that phenomenon will continue in your
viewing. I will isolate your post with horizonal lines to avoid confusion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Receiving the benefit of any doubt, your opinion that no corruption is
involved depends critically on your denial that the forum promised a
fiduciary level of duty. You went so far as to claim, with reckless
boldness not to speak of ordinary rudeness, that I made this up. My
argument, and I hope your disagreement, rests completely on the
promise of a fiduciary level of duty. I am pissed off not because my
submission was unfairly refused--big deal--but because I was deceived
about the exercise of moderation, and I'll admit, pissed somewhat at
myself for breaking a quasi-principle of never posting to a moderated
forum, where controversy is involved.
I'll say that with these facts before me, I would join a crusade
against such corruption of public discussion, whether our difference
is a matter of personal character or ideology. But it may not be a
difference at all. You might merely be incredulous at the promise of
mock-fiduciary duty. So here is the crucial quote from the Charter, of
which you were unaware:
13. Although no legal relationships are created by this
document, the moderator is expected to behave as if she or
he were in a fiduciary relationship with persons reading and
posting to the group. (http://tinyurl.com/64xrqy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, I appologize for my comment about you making up the fiduciary rule.
That rule is incredible in this context and I didn't even consider the
possibility that the charter could contain such an incredible statement. I
am not normally impolite and should not have departed from that policy just
because you did (calling us sheep because we don't make your problem our
cause.) I shall avoid impoliteness with increased vigilence in the future,
especially when someone steps on my tail.
Second, I was reacting to your use of the word corruption. I attributed an
improper motive to your use of the word. Coruption involves dishonesty for
personal gain, generally monetary gain. I don't agree that the word
includes every dereliction of duty. And the word certainly wouldn't be my
choice if the conduct complained of is motivated by bias concerning beliefs.
The addition of fiduciary duty to the equation doesn't change that. Breach
of ficuciary duty for reasons of personal bias is not corruption. I am
aware that other definitions exist, broad enough to encompass any matters
not motivated by monetary gain. But I don't agree with those definitions.
It was and is my impression that you are artificially mis-characterizing the
wrongdoing of the moderator by use of the word corruption. That is,
mis-characterizing the conduct for the purpose of enlisting others in your
cause, on the false basis that everyone should care about this petty bias
because you label it as corruption, and then calling us sheep because we
ignore corruption. That manipulative use caused the irritation that led me
to my impolite and inaccurate comment.
This answer must not be relied on as legal advice for the reasons posted
here: http://mcgyverdisclaimer.blogspot.com . And I am not your attorney.
McGyver
|
| |
| |
|
